Polls and Surveys Acceptance of evolution

“Despite its 535 pages of UNESCO’s bureaucratic jargon, the GEM Report is rich in evidence. It does, indeed, ‘provide readers with an authoritative source’ of data to help them ‘argue for the value and importance of education at all levels of decision making.’ And it starts with the very title ‘Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All.’ – At last, we, the people, are one and the same with Earth.”

In the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) alerts us that education “will not deliver its full potential unless participation rates increase and sustainable development guides education system reform.” The GEM Report also examines “the destructive impact that climate change, conflict [war], unsustainable consumption [of finite natural resources] and the increasing gap between rich and poor have on education.”

Click on image to enlarge.

Despite its 535 pages of UNESCO’s bureaucratic jargon, the GEM Report is rich in evidence. It does, indeed, “provide readers with an authoritative source” of data to help them “argue for the value and importance of education at all levels of decision making.” And it starts with the very title “Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All.” At last, we, the people, are one and the same with Earth.

Here are paraphrased the report’s major findings:

Between 2008 and 2014, 84 percent of the world’s youth completed upper secondary school in high-income countries, in contrast to 43 percent in upper-middle income, 38 percent in lower-middle income, and 14 percent in low-income nations. Across 76 countries, 20 percent of the 25- to 29-year-olds in the richest nations had finished at least four years of tertiary education (college/university), compared to less than one percent in the poorest. In 2014, 63 percent of countries achieved gender parity in primary education, but only 46 percent in lower-secondary, and 23 percent in upper-secondary schooling.

Click on image to enlarge.

Click on image to enlarge.

Between 2005 and 2015, school facilities in 26 countries were used for military purposes. Among refugees, 50 percent of primary- and 75 percent of secondary-school-aged were out of school.

From 2005 to 2014, 758 million adults —114 million aged 15 to 24— could not read or write a sentence; nearly two thirds were women. In 2014, 82 percent of the teachers had minimum qualifications to teach in pre-primary, 93 percent in primary, and 91 percent in secondary schools.

In at least 35 countries, governments spent less than four percent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and less than 15 percent of their total expenditure on education. UNESCO remarks that such investments need to increase at least six fold to account for the $39 billion annual education finance gap, but in 2014, the levels were eight percent lower than at their 2010 peak.

Click on image to enlarge.

Click on image to enlarge.

Under current trends, primary school completion for all people might be achieved in 2042, lower secondary school in 2059, and upper secondary school in 2084. Note that upper secondary schooling for women in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030 shall lead to 300,000 fewer child deaths per year in 2050. Not only that, upper secondary completion by 2030 in low-income nations shall increase per capita income by 75 percent by 2050, and accelerate poverty reduction —or its elimination— by ten years.

Click on image to enlarge.

Prosperous nations have their own problems: one in ten countries in Europe and North America will not achieve universal upper secondary completion by 2030. Why does this matter? The GEM Report responds with cost-benefit projections: a five percent increase in male high-school-graduation rate in the United States would add $20 billion to the economy via reduced crime and higher input to the workforce (for original source see Education and Crime 2013).

UNESCO goes on: from a humanitarian perspective, providing universal upper secondary schooling to the world by 2030 would prevent 50,000 disaster-related fatalities per decade by 2040-2050. Yes, education saves lives.

For UNESCO, education is the most effective tool for reducing fertility rates. In Madagascar, for example, a single extra year of schooling extends the space between births by 0.5 years. Environmental education correlates with better “green knowledge” (pro-environment attitudes and technologies) and sustainable life styles. However, only 73 percent of 78 countries’ curricula mention “sustainable development,” 55 percent “ecology,” and 47 percent “environmental education.” The latter is crucial for disaster preparedness: “if education progress is stalled, it could lead to a 20 percent increase in disaster-related fatalities per decade.”

“The great contribution of ‘Measuring the Evolution Controversy’ is the rich content of data and analysis that asks detailed questions about the social, economic and political backgrounds of those who tend to reject evolution vs. those who accept evolution as science. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa deftly analyze their data drawn from institutions of higher learning in the United States and particularly New England —which stands as a microcosm of the rest of the country, and indeed elsewhere in the world. It is their scientific approach to these issues which makes this book stand out as a uniquely original contribution.” —Niles Eldredge, PhD, Curator Emeritus of Paleontology at The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

“Pro-science activists and educators constantly bemoan the resistance to the teaching of evolution in the United States. All of us have anecdotes about encounters with the public, parents and students who are misinformed by their churches, Religious-Right groups, and creationist organizations. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa present hard data that support the anecdotal evidence. They also show that although anti-evolutionism typically begins with religion, it is a multi-faceted problem that intersects with political and cultural ideologies. Gathered through careful research over a period of years, their data will enable scientists and defenders of science education to comprehend the roots of the evolution controversy and counteract resistance to evolution more strategically and effectively.” — Barbara Forrest, PhD, co-author with Paul R. Gross of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (2007), and expert witness for plaintiffs, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“The sweet spot of this collection of essays is the interface of science, history and literacy. Paz-y-Miño-C is, in essence, a champion of rationalism and a passionate defender of literacy standards. His essays deftly weave hard survey data and memorable turns of phrase with evocative imagery… While the essays in this collection are vast in coverage —from climate change to energy policy, stem cell research, vaccinations and, especially, evolution— a clear underlying theme emerges: [the author’s] goal is no less than to counter, through the lens of history and the majesty of rationalism, social forces that sanction ignorance, celebrate denial and… continue to diminish our global status in the fields of science and technology.” Jeff Podos, PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA.

“The reality of evolution is indisputable and, based on current scientific evidence, all people in the world should accept it. Yet, only 41% of adults worldwide embrace evolution, and they do it under the premise that a deity created humans. One in every three people are strict creationists who believe in religious scriptures concerning the origin of our universe and of humans, and explicitly reject that Homo sapiens is an ape —when, in fact, science informs us that humans’ closest relatives are chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans. Indeed, we are all apes.”

Endorsements

“The great contribution of ‘Measuring the Evolution Controversy’ is the rich content of data and analysis that asks detailed questions about the social, economic and political backgrounds of those who tend to reject evolution vs. those who accept evolution as science. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa deftly analyze their data drawn from institutions of higher learning in the United States and particularly New England —which stands as a microcosm of the rest of the country, and indeed elsewhere in the world. It is their scientific approach to these issues which makes this book stand out as a uniquely original contribution.” —Niles Eldredge, PhD, Curator Emeritus of Paleontology at The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

“Pro-science activists and educators constantly bemoan the resistance to the teaching of evolution in the United States. All of us have anecdotes about encounters with the public, parents and students who are misinformed by their churches, Religious-Right groups, and creationist organizations. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa present hard data that support the anecdotal evidence. They also show that although anti-evolutionism typically begins with religion, it is a multi-faceted problem that intersects with political and cultural ideologies. Gathered through careful research over a period of years, their data will enable scientists and defenders of science education to comprehend the roots of the evolution controversy and counteract resistance to evolution more strategically and effectively.” — Barbara Forrest, PhD, co-author with Paul R. Gross of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (2007), and expert witness for plaintiffs, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).

Why do people not accept evolution?

“In Measuring the Evolution Controversy, Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa postulate that the debate over evolution-and-science versus creationism is inherent to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation (religion and faith). Belief disrupts, distorts, delays or stops the comprehension and acceptance of scientific evidence. The authors refer to this proposal as the incompatibility hypothesis (IH), the conceptual foundation of this book.”

“Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa explain that the evolution controversy is not only measurable, descriptively, but also testable as in an ordinary field of science. To accomplish this, they examine three predictions of IH. First, chronological-conflict-and-accommodation (i.e. the historical re-emergence of antagonism between evolution and religion when advances in science continue to threaten the belief in supernatural causation; in such situations, creationists’ rejection of and subsequent partial acceptance of the new scientific discoveries are expected). Second, change in evolution’s acceptance as function of educational attainment (i.e. the positive association between acceptance of evolution and level of education). Third, change in evolution’s acceptance as function of religiosity (i.e. the negative association between acceptance of evolution and level of religious beliefs). By relying on an ample assessment of the attitudes toward evolution by highly-educated audiences (i.e. research faculty, educators of prospective teachers, and college students in the United States) the authors characterize their understanding of science and evolution, personal religious convictions, and political ideology.”

“The authors make recommendations for improving science and evolution literacy, as well as evolution’s acceptance. They end the book by forecasting a probable world-socio-cultural landscape in which acceptance of science and evolution will take place.”

Chapter Eight – Recommendations and the Future of Evolution’s Acceptance: The U.S.

Chapter Nine – Evolution and the Upcoming Challenges of a Predictable Landscape

Appendix A – Survey Methods

Appendix B – Supplementary Figures to Chapter Four

Authors’ Bionotes

Exemplar Images

Above: Acceptance of evolution or creationism among educators of prospective teachers in the United States. The majority of educators accept evolution openly; creationism is accepted openly mainly in the South and West of the country.

Above: Science and evolution knowledge have a negative association with religiosity; both decline with increasing religious beliefs, as documented for the New England researchers, educators of prospective teachers in the U.S., and New England college students (a-b). Note how evolution knowledge increases with increasing science knowledge in the three groups (c), a positive association of variables.

Above: Science and evolution knowledge among the non-religious (top; religiosity index = 0.0) and the deeply religious (bottom; religiosity index = 3.0). The non-religious New England researchers, educators of prospective teachers in the U.S., and New England college students score highest in science/evolution knowledge: values ranging from 2.59 (high) to 1.67 (low). In contrast, the deeply religious, score lowest in science/evolution knowledge: values ranging from 2.0 (high) to 1.35 (low).

Excerpts from the Preface

“In Chapters One to Three, we introduce the reader to the conceptual premises to studying the evolution controversy as a scientific field of investigation. In Chapters Four and Five, we examine acceptance of evolution in our case-study population of educators of prospective teachers in the U.S.; we explore their overall understanding of science/evolution, and the effects of distinctive levels of religiosity on their views about science and evolution. We also discuss the influence of political ideology and conservative thinking on these educators’ perceptions of evolution.”

“In Chapter Six, we compare acceptance of evolution among New England researchers (affiliated with some of the elite universities in the U.S.) vs. the educators of prospective teachers in the U.S., and vs. our samples of New England college students. In Chapter Seven, we contrast views about science/evolution among college students at public vs. private vs. religious institutions. And, in Chapter Eight, we provide recommendations for improving science and evolution literacy, as well as evolution’s acceptance, by each of these populations. We close, in Chapter Nine, with a forecast of a probable world-socio-cultural landscape in which acceptance of science and evolution will take place in the future.”

The Future of Evolution’s Acceptance

“Because the U.S. is projected to become slightly less religious and more unaffiliated by 2050 (primarily due to faith switching and secularization of the “nones” –non-believers, agnostics and atheists), we speculate that acceptance of evolution in this nation will increase during the next four decades. However, America’s fascination with reinventing variants of creationism (e.g. theistic evolution, creation science, young earth creationism, Intelligent Design, BioLogos, evolutionary creation) to challenge evolution, or insert a Creator or Designer in the background of causality (distant creationism), shall probably continue in the future, although in an improved, more-favorable-to-evolution landscape. A forecast that we make with cautious optimism.”

Above: The U.S. will experience substantial population growth during the next forty years, from 310.4 million, in 2010, to 394.4 million by 2050 (a 21.3% increase). The current Christian majority will decrease by 2050 (from 77.4% to 65.8%) and the unaffiliated will increase during the same time period (from 17.1% to 25.6%). The fertility rates (2010 – 2015) will continue to be higher among the religious vs. the unaffiliated (Muslims 2.7, Christians 2.1, Hindus 2.1, Buddhists 2.1, Jews 2.0, and unaffiliated 1.6). The U.S. shall become less religious primarily due to the rise of the unaffiliated. Thus, public acceptance of evolution —excluding humans— will increase in the U.S. above its current ≈40%.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“The sweet spot of this collection of essays is the interface of science, history and literacy. Paz-y-Miño-C is, in essence, a champion of rationalism and a passionate defender of literacy standards. His essays deftly weave hard survey data and memorable turns of phrase with evocative imagery… While the essays in this collection are vast in coverage —from climate change to energy policy, stem cell research, vaccinations and, especially, evolution— a clear underlying theme emerges: [the author’s] goal is no less than to counter, through the lens of history and the majesty of rationalism, social forces that sanction ignorance, celebrate denial and… continue to diminish our global status in the fields of science and technology.” Jeff Podos, PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA.

“Paz-y-Miño-C is a firm believer in evolutionary processes. He would like to see decisions made on the basis of facts, not unsupported opinion. He abhors and fears irrational thinking, especially ‘the views of those who see evil in truth and menace in the realities discovered by science.’ He marvels at the intricacy and diversity of life, and how it came about through natural selection… and is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of so many to see the beauty and majesty in this view of the world and all that it explains.” – Jan A. Pechenik, PhD, Professor of Biology, Tufts University, USA, author of The Readable Darwin: The Origin of Species, as Edited for Modern Readers.

EvoLiteracy News 03 23 2016

Yes, women worldwide are, overall, more religious than men. Yesterday, the Pew Research Center released another update to its frequent reports on religion (The Gender Gap in Religion Around the World), which I shared on Facebook. It includes useful maps and descriptive statistics, however, here I summarize only the numeric trends and leave the maps aside (they are didactic). Readers can find the complete report online, as well as the figures and web-links. But first, why do we care at EvoLiteracy News about this topic? One of the reasons (not the only one) is that acceptance of evolution is negatively associated with level of religiosity, as we (and other researchers) have demonstrated in numerous studies. Therefore, the Pew Research report would imply that women, worldwide, accept evolution less than men. But this is –of course– something not addressed by the Pew Research Center in this particular study (see such differences here). Instead the report focuses on speculating about why the gender gap in religious commitment exists, and it does demonstrate that, by just joining the workforce, women become less religious (voilà) –although the gender gap remains. The report, however, disregards the historical oppressive role of religion on all peoples, particularly women. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

Please, examine the figures below in detail. I will provide general statements to guide your understanding. The first image summarizes how women worldwide are more likely to be religiously affiliated (83.4%) than men (79.9%), and this is the case across religions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, folk religions, other religions and Jewish). In consequence, the religiously-unaffiliated women worldwide tend to be fewer (16.6%) than men (20.1%).

With this information in mind, the histograms below become fairly easy to grasp. They summarize the percentages of religiously affiliated men and women (ages 20+) in each of the major religious groups. Note how, in the majority of cases, women are more religious than men. And note also how among the unaffiliated people, only 45% of women, in contrast to 55% of men, consider themselves non-believers, agnostics, or non-practitioners of any organized religion.

The next image shows how, among Christians, women tend to be more religious than men on specific categories, including: weekly attendance to religious services, daily prayer, considering religion to be important in their lives, believing in heaven or hell, and believing in angels. These W-M differences are not statistically evident among Muslims (except for attendance to religious services, which is heavily men oriented).

What about the atheists? Well, they tend to be mostly men across the sampled countries (i.e. Uruguay, US, Germany, Spain, UK, Australia, China and France), except for China and France where the difference M-W is minimal.

What is the situation in the United States? The religiosity gender gap in the US (the most religious nation among the most developed) is quite accentuated: 47% of men versus 64% of women pray daily; 47% of men versus 60% of women consider religion to be important in their lives; and 32% of men versus 40% of women attend religious services weekly. In these three categories, the US surpasses all other developed nations, including Canada, UK, Germany, Australia and France.

Does employment (or being part of the labor force) have any effect on the gender gap of religious practices? The answer is yes. Women OUT OF the labor force (not working) are generally more religions than men. In fact, women out of the labor force double, or almost double, men in praying daily, attending religious services weekly, and considering religion to be important in their lives.

The “pray daily” category is particularly informative. For example, in predominantly Christian nations, having more women in the labor force is associated with a reduction in the religiosity gender gap. In other words, women who work not only pray less than women who do not work, but also their difference in praying in comparison to men is less when women have a paying job.

The association described above, however, is not evident among predominantly NON-Christian nations; in them, having more women working is not associated with the size of the gender gap in daily prayer. Can the reader tell (or hypothesize) why? Hint, look at the dot distribution in the figure below, and also the percent point range above and below 0% (the y axis on the left); then, examine the dot distribution on the x axis (bottom).

CONCLUSION: Why does the religiosity gender gap exist? The Pew Research Center report speculates that “biology, psychology, genetics, family environment, social status, workforce participation and a lack of ‘existential security’ (felt by many women because they generally are more afflicted than men by poverty, illness, old age and violence)” might help explain the difference in women’s versus men’s religiosity worldwide. In addition, the report lists a few crucial observations:

(1) Women who participate in the labor force show lower levels of religious commitment than women who do not work outside the home for pay. (2) When these two groups of women are compared with men (most of whom are in the labor force), the gender gaps [continue to] differ. (3) The gap between women who are in the labor force and men tends to be smaller than the gap between women who are not in the labor force and men. (4) This pattern holds even after accounting for education level, age and marital status. (5) Across predominantly Christian countries, the overall gender gaps in daily prayer and importance of religion are smaller in countries where more women are in the labor force.

“…But I want to make sure that the readers keep in mind that we ought to celebrate secularism worldwide, and pursue the vanishing of religion all together. We are not aiming at shrinking the religiosity gap between men and women who believe (alone or together) in a non-existing deity. That is not the point, not even the starting-point in this dialog. The secular perspective is about bringing reason and science to the debate over “belief,” and to free societies from the sequels of belief: disruption, distortion, delay or stop (3Ds + S) in the acceptance of any evidence, and particularly of scientific evidence.”

In essence, the Pew Research Center report is highlighting that “being part of the labor force,” in other words, “just having a job,” makes women less religious, and, therefore, the gender gap in religiosity shrinks (although it does continue to persist). But the Pew Research Center chooses to be politically correct and says nothing about the oppressive role of religion itself on women (more than on men) that contributes to the overall gender inequality in most societies (beyond religion). It does not address either the type of individual and socio-economic independence gained by women when joining the labor force in Christian nations (mostly in the West) versus elsewhere. But I want to make sure that the readers keep in mind that we ought to celebrate secularism worldwide, and pursue the vanishing of religion all together. We are not aiming at shrinking the religiosity gap between men and women who believe (alone or together) in a non-existing deity. That is not the point, not even the starting-point in this dialog. The secular perspective is about bringing reason and science to the debate over “belief,” and to free societies from the sequels of belief: disruption, distortion, delay or stop (3Ds + S) in the acceptance of any evidence, and particularly of scientific evidence. — EvoLiteracy News.

EvoLiteracy News 02 17 2016

World Visitors to EVOLUTION LITERACY – Readers from 103 countries visited EvoLiteracy during 2015. Three in every four readers were from the United States. About one in every five visitors were from Brazil, Canada, UK, Germany, India, Ecuador, France, Australia and Spain. And one in every ten cyberworms came from 93 other countries. EvoLiteracy is growing thanks to our world friends and followers. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C.

There are 190+ countries in the world (member states of the United Nations). EvoLiteracy reaches half of them (52%). The image below includes flags of nations, which total 230+. We still need to reach as many nations as possible. Please share EvoLiteracy with others.

Flags of 230+ nations in the world. Click on image to enlarge. Source Danilka’s Blog.

Top 25 Most Read Posts of 2015

Here are the most popular postings of 2015. I was glad to discover that the biology science videosmade much of an impact, particularly among science educators. I also liked that three crucial postings about higher education (marked with an asterisk * below) were well received. To my surprise (and I thank the readers for liking it), the posting about Ecuador’s Academy of Science was ranked top 10. My personal favorite was Science Challenges Golden Age of Violin Making, and this is because I am fascinated with string instruments (classic guitars, ukuleles, charangos); I learned much while investigating the violin ancestry. But I cannot close without admitting how much pleasure gave me to see our readers liking Evolution Wars Debunk II (ranked 13th, a lucky number). Plus the most commented story was Shroud of Turin, Poor Science, and the Persistence of a Myth, which was reposted in various blogs and generated two weeks of discussions. Thanks to all for supporting EvoLiteracy. – GPC

EvoLiteracy News 02 12 2016

“Darwin Day… signifies the celebration of the achievements of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge. The igniting moments in human history when light was brought into our own origins, when understanding that ordinary apes, like Homo, were capable of the extraordinary, of discovering the truth and debunking obscurantism; yet we still struggle to make science the sole guiding star in our survival decisions, the reliable source of concern and joy, the toolkit to plan our departure from Earth –before our Sun in agonizing heat engulfs its nearest orbiting planets– and seek home somewhere else in the cosmos” — Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

A few images and Evolution-Literacy links to celebrate International Darwin Day. — An update on our New England Science Public Series Evolution Volumes 1 and 2, including open access to the studies on acceptance of evolution in the United States. — Links to our Incompatibility Hypothesis papers (evolution versus supernatural causation). — A recount of a visit to the Down House (Darwin’s home). — And an article, from 2013, about the “history of Darwin Day” at the US Congress. Enjoy. – GPC

Here are some photos of Darwin’s statue at the British Museum of Natural History in London, taken back in 2010.

Above: an overall view of Darwin’s statue (marble) at the British Museum of Natural History in London.

Above: a close up of Darwin’s rostrum.

Above: and another close up of this beautiful carving on marble.

Above: the main hall at the British Museum of Natural History in London. Darwin’s statue is in the back, just at the end of the first level of the stairs.

Above: the outdoors of the British Museum of Natural History in London.

NOVA Publishers (New York) used one of these images for the cover of our book Evolution Stands Faith Up: Reflections on Evolution’s Wars (2013). “Paz-y-Miño-C doesn’t ask the reader to ‘believe’ in evolution. He provides overwhelming evidence, clearly written, that shows how scientific inquiry leads to important and practical results, while superstition and faith lead nowhere. Although we may not be able to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, the author presents a roadmap for those whose minds are open to discover the wonders and beauty of science.” – Herb Silverman, PhD, author of Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt. Find Evolution Stands Faith Up at NOVA: Soft Cover, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, Amazon UK.

Update on NESP Series Evolution

The open access New England Science Public Series Evolution continues to be highly downloaded. Here are some updates:

1,670+ downloads of Volume 1, Number 1: Paz-y-Miño-C G & Espinosa A. 2013. Attitudes toward Evolution at New England Colleges and Universities, United States. New England Science Public: Series Evolution 1(1): 1-32 (ISSN: 2326-0971). The authors compile the most significant results of their conceptual and quantitative studies on the patterns of acceptance of evolution at New England colleges and universities, conducted between 2009 and 2012. They examine the views of New England Faculty and Educators of Prospective Teachers (higher-education faculty themselves, specialized in training future teachers) from 35 colleges and universities, as well as a representative sample of College Students from a Public, Private and two Religious institutions who were polled in three areas: the controversy over evolution versus creationism versus Intelligent Design; their understanding of how science and the evolutionary process work; and their personal convictions concerning the evolution and/or creation of humans in the context of their religiosity… Read MORE open access.

430+ downloads of Volume 2, Number 1: Paz-y-Miño-C G & Espinosa A. 2014. Acceptance of Evolution by America’s Educators of Prospective Teachers. New England Science Public: Series Evolution 2(1): 1-92 (ISSN: 2326-0971). In NESP Series Evolution Vol 2 No 1, Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa use the conceptual framework of the Incompatibility Hypothesis (i.e. science/evolution and belief in supernatural causation are incompatible) to document the patterns of acceptance of evolution of 495 Educators of Prospective Teachers affiliated with 281 colleges and universities widely distributed in 4 regions, 9 divisions, and 50 states in the United States. These higher-education professionals (65% PhD-, 22% doctorate-holders) were polled in five areas: (i) their views about evolution, creationism and Intelligent Design, (ii) their understanding of how science and the evolutionary process work, (iii) their position about the hypothetical ‘harmony or compatibility’ between science/evolution and supernatural causation, (iv) their awareness of the age of the Earth, its moon, our solar system and the universe, and the application of the concept of evolution to the cosmos, and (v) their personal convictions concerning the evolution and/or creation of humans in the context of the educators’ religiosity… Read MORE open access.

The Incompatibility Hypothesis: evolution vs. supernatural causation

Supernatural causation (i.e. the belief in a Supreme Being, creator and sustainer of the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) is a cultural pollutant, incompatible with empirical reality. “Belief” disrupts, distorts, delays and/or stops (3Ds+S) the correct comprehension and acceptance of evidence. We have postulated that the controversy over evolution-and-science versus creationism is inherent to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation. This hypothesis (= incompatibility) helps us understand and explain the everlasting and fluctuating antagonism –in cycles, from moderate to intense opposition during human history– in the relationship between science/evolution and religion… Read MORE and access free PDFs of scientific articles, including Evolution Controversy: A Phenomenon Prompted by the Incompatibility between Science and Religious Beliefs published in the International Journal of Science in Society (abstract below) [PDF].

Evolution Controversy – Science in Society: Paz-y-Miño-C G & Espinosa A. 2015. Evolution Controversy: A Phenomenon Prompted by the Incompatibility between Science and Religious Beliefs. Int. J. Sci. Soc. 7(2). ISSN 1836-6236. The incompatibility between science and the belief in supernatural causation helps us understand why people do not accept evolution. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays, or stops (3Ds + S) the acceptance of scientific evidence. Here we examine the evolution controversy under three predictions of the incompatibility hypothesis. First, chronological-conflict-and-accommodation, which explains the historical re-emergence of antagonism between evolution and religion when advances in science continue to threaten the belief in supernatural causation; in such situations, creationists’ rejection of and subsequent partial acceptance of the new scientific discoveries are expected. Second, change in evolution’s acceptance is a function of educational attainment, which explains the positive association between acceptance of evolution and level of education. And third, change in evolution’s acceptance is a function of religiosity, which explains the negative association between acceptance of evolution and level of religious beliefs… We emphasize that harmonious coexistence between science and religion is illusory. If co-persisting in society, their relationship will fluctuate from moderate to intense antagonism. Read MORE open access [PDF].

Some History about Darwin Day at the US Congress

Click on image to watch video. Paul Broun (R) “All that stuff I was taught about evolution… all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell”

“…Bill H.Res.41, itself, embodies the never-ending battle against irrationalism, the latter vividly present in the views of those who see evil in truth and menace in the realities discovered by science. Take, for example, last year’s remarks by congressman Paul Broun (R), from Georgia, a physician and member of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (the very Committee to which the “Darwin Day bill” was referred), who declared: “God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

And Mr. Broun went on, as documented in video watched worldwide: “It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.” “You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.” “I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old.” “I believe it was created in six day as we know them.” “That’s what the Bible says.” Read MORE.

The complete article, which includes 23-pages, 11 figures and 59 references, can be downloaded —for free— from the International Journal of Science in Society. Click on the image (left) to go to the journal website to download the PDF.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“The sweet spot of this collection of essays is the interface of science, history and literacy. Paz-y-Miño-C is, in essence, a champion of rationalism and a passionate defender of literacy standards. His essays deftly weave hard survey data and memorable turns of phrase with evocative imagery… While the essays in this collection are vast in coverage —from climate change to energy policy, stem cell research, vaccinations and, especially, evolution— a clear underlying theme emerges: [the author’s] goal is no less than to counter, through the lens of history and the majesty of rationalism, social forces that sanction ignorance, celebrate denial and… continue to diminish our global status in the fields of science and technology.” Jeff Podos, PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA.

“Paz-y-Miño-C is a firm believer in evolutionary processes. He would like to see decisions made on the basis of facts, not unsupported opinion. He abhors and fears irrational thinking, especially ‘the views of those who see evil in truth and menace in the realities discovered by science.’ He marvels at the intricacy and diversity of life, and how it came about through natural selection… and is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of so many to see the beauty and majesty in this view of the world and all that it explains.” – Jan A. Pechenik, PhD, Professor of Biology, Tufts University, USA, author of The Readable Darwin: The Origin of Species, as Edited for Modern Readers.

• First Red Flag: Justin W. Rice et al. (2015) suggest that the Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa research (2011a, 2012a) on acceptance of evolution in New England (sample of science and education faculty at 35 colleges and universities) is invalid. Yet, Rice et al. conduct a comparable study, at a single institution in the Midwest of the country, and generate analogous results.

• Second Red Flag: Rice et al. find that “theistic views have a pervasive influence on knowledge and acceptance of evolution,” and that agnostic/atheist faculty hold the highest rates of knowing and accepting evolution (another replication of the Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa research). Yet, Rice et al. bend over backwards, ignore their own data, and proceed to invoke The Clergy Letter Project to endorse theistic evolution in the science class (= creationism in principle, distant creationism, God in the background of evolution), rather than purely secular science education as an obvious choice to securing proper science schooling.

• Third Red Flag: After disregarding other scholars’ studies, Rice et al. present themselves as a more reliable source in the field of acceptance of evolution by highly educated audiences. Yet, Rice et al.’s writing is restricted to proximate, quantitative descriptions of acceptance of evolution. No hypothesis-testing approach, no ultimate causation explanations for the evolution controversy are offered in their paper. These authors’ mission is to sponsor ‘faith’ in science education and campaign for matrimony between science and religion. A Type-I error, conceptual fallacy in their approach.

The complete article, which includes 23-pages, 11 figures and 59 references, can be downloaded —for free— from the International Journal of Science in Society. Click on the image (left) to go to the journal website to download the PDF.